1. The Defendant’s provisional disposition of denial of construction against the Plaintiff on July 13, 2015 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission for new construction of a house with the purport of newly constructing a building area of 106.74 square meters, block structure reinforced concrete roof, and single floor detached house with respect to the Defendant of the 1,399 square meters (hereinafter “instant application site”) among B B 1,393 square meters prior to Jinju-si.

(hereinafter “instant application”). (b)

On July 13, 2015, the Defendant rendered non-permission regarding the instant application for the following reasons.

Consultation on a permit to divert farmland (report)

(a) Grounds for non-consultation (Article 33 (1) 4 (d) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act): It shall be intended to preserve an agricultural environment, such as securing water sources and preserving water quality in an agricultural protection zone;

(b) Alternative: If it is possible under the regulations on permission to divert farmland, no consultation on permission to engage in development;

(a) Grounds: Consultation on development activities is not possible under the following conditions pursuant to Articles 56 and 58 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), Article 56 and attached Table 1-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Chapter 3 of the Operational Guidelines for Permission of Development Activities, and Article 20 (Standards for Development Activities) of the Jinju City Urban Planning Ordinance (Standards for Development Activities), with respect to which an application is filed - It is located at the upstream of the C reservoir and its surrounding areas due to development activities, there is a concern that environmental pollution, damage caused by water pollution, soil contamination, etc. may occur

C. On July 28, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition with the Standing Committee on Administrative Appeals (Seoul-do), but received a decision to dismiss the appeal on October 6, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 7 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Although the instant application price relating to the Plaintiff’s ground for disposition 11 corresponds to an agricultural protection zone, it is not a arable area, but a dry field with spawn spawn, bean, etc., and thus, farmland conservation.